2006-12-26T12:50:00.000+01:00
br / br / The background. Firstly, there is no Somalia. 'Somalia' consists of several regions controlled by individual regimes, claiming sovereignty over their own region, or the whole country.
[ a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somali-war-12252006-1952.
svg" map /a ] There is Somaliland in the north, a previous British colony, which has been functioning as a state since 1991. Then there is Puntland, occupying the very Horn of Africa, and claiming only autonomy, not necessarily independence. Further south, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) controls most of the country, including the capital, Mogadishu.
The weakest of all seems to be the UN-supported Transitional Federal Government (TFG). In addition, there are local groups controlling some territory. br / br / Ethnic (Muslim) Somalis also inhabit Ogaden, which is the easternmost region of (Christian) Ethiopia.
The Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) is fighting for the independence of the region, while the leaders of the Somali Islamic militia (ICU) have repeatedly said they want to incorporate ethnic Somalis living in eastern Ethiopia, northeastern Kenya and Djibouti into a Greater Somalia [ a href="http://www.guardian.co.
uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6302081,00.html" source /a ]. Oh, and there's Eritrea further north, which has only gained its independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
The two countries have been at war for most of the time since, and Eritrea openly supports the ICU at present. br / br / A few days ago, Ethiopian forces entered Somali territory. Not much brain is needed to understand that in international law, this cannot be done without a good reason.
In fact, there are very few of such reasons: (I) a military measure to restore/protect international peace and security, authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter and (II) self-defence and. Military actions of liberation and anti-colonial movements have also been acceptable under international law, but are irrelevant in this specific case (although they are relevant in the case of ONLF). The question is, does a country have to wait until it is attacked or is it entitled to strike first, when the other side shows clear signs of preparing an invasion?
br / br / Ethiopia's prime minister, Meles Zenawi, said in a televised broadcast that he had ordered the action because he had no choice. "Ethiopian defense forces were forced to enter into war to protect the sovereignty of the nation," he said. "We are not trying to set up a government for Somalia, nor do we have an intention to meddle in Somalia's internal affairs.
We have only been forced by the circumstances." [..
.] "What did you expect us to do?" said Zemedkun Tekle, a spokesman for Ethiopia's information ministry.
"Wait for them to attack our cities?" [ a href="http://www.iht.
com/articles/2006/12/25/news/web.1225somalia.php" source /a ] br / br / Generally on pre-emptive strike.
I think it is beyond argumentation that an 'attack' justifying self-defence is not established once the shot is fired, but already at the point when the gun has been pulled and aimed in your direction. Thus, the object of the discussion is the legality of using force against a country which is preparing an attack. I say that if the preparations are objectively (physically) documented, if they are capable of leading to a successful launch of an attack, and if the intention to attack has been expressed by the authorities of the state, then a pre-emptive strike is legitimate and should be legal.
Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein did not present such a danger to any of the countries of the Coalition of the Willing. Pre-emptive strike could thus not have been an effective ground for the justification of the invasion. The other possible ground, unilateral humanitarian intervention, is irrelevant here.
br / br / The rest in the case of Ethiopia versus ICU is a matter of facts. Does the ICU really present a danger for Ethiopian territory? I don't know, all I'm saying is: if it does, then Ethiopia is justified to invade.
br / br / Of course my logic has problems. Firstly, is the territory controlled by the ICU a state, can it be a subject of international law? If you answer affirmatively, then the above applies.
If you answer negatively and claim that the TGF is the 'state' in Somalia, then I say the Ethiopian forces entered Somalia with consent of the government of the country, and there is no legal problem at all. br / br / The final twist is that the aim of the planned actions of the ICU on the territory of Ethiopia is the liberation of the Somalis living there, which are the majority ethnic group in Ogaden and entitled to self-determination under international law. Yes, they are, but that must not lead us to concluding that help from outside is also legitimate.
The sovereignty of Ethiopia takes precedence. Whatever the aim, the ICU has no legal ground for interfering in Ethiopia's internal affairs.
post-1962253466068251812
blogger.com/_AIJ3AHKxcmM/RXWECSQbuhI/AAAAAAAAAAU/D0tXEND7WZ0/s1600-h/de.gif" img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp3.
blogger.com/_AIJ3AHKxcmM/RXWECSQbuhI/AAAAAAAAAAU/D0tXEND7WZ0/s200/de.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5005051735687543314" border="0" / /a No, in this post I am not going to declare myself German.
(The more time I spend abroad, the more I learn how special, beautiful and...
well...
normal my country and my culture are.) br / br / I find it unnecessary that the average German is not able to be proud of his germanhood and I find it disgusting that 'You shouldn't be saying this because you're German!' is still a very effective disarming weapon in many conversations that might, if only superficially, touch subjects of war, expansionism, Israel or whatever else in this direction.
br / br / So the whole Third Reich thing was not a good idea. Moreover, it was pretty much the worst thing that has ever happened to this planet. Still, it is not 'the Germans' who are responsible for it.
The architects of the National-Socialist regime have names and surnames. Many of them were convicted and imprisoned after 1945. Still others escaped only through commiting suicide, including Him-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
They were the ones responsible for the atrocities of the Second World War. Not the German people. If you disagree, we can go further still, and say that every soldier who served in the German army in the war, that every pseudoscientist or pseudoentrepreneur who helped run the destruction machineries of Auschwitz etc.
can be guilty. But guilty because of what they did, not guilty because they were German. br / br / It's been sixty years now and it still isn't clear to many.
What is more, it is still not clear to the Germans. I can imagine that it cannot fill one with pride to know that their grandfather fought for Hitler, but there is no responsibility to be carried by the grandchildren. br / br / Yet, the only ones who laughed at the Hitler joke* made by the professor during one of the lectures I attended a while ago here in Greifswald were foreign exchange students.
Those from the countries struck most devastatingly by the German war machinery laughed the most. The German students twitched uncomfortably and stared at the floor. br / br / The responsibility that the German generations of today carry is solely the responsibility for themselves.
The responsibility to run a democratic, free country like anyone else. And honestly, they are doing a rather good job at it.
News RSS